DEVARAJAN Vs. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the selection of 3rd respondent as the successful bidder for conducting the canteen for the employees of the 1st respondent at old Thevara Road, Ernakulam, and to quash the selection, and for other related reliefs. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Second respondent invited quotation for conducting the canteen for the employees of the 1st respondent at old Thevara Road, Ernakulam for a period of one year. Pursuant to the invitation of tender, petitioner submitted his quotation. Nine other persons also participated in the tender, including the 3rd respondent. The rates quoted by the petitioner for the food items were lower than the rates quoted by the other bidders, especially the 3rd respondent, evident from Ext.P1 quotation submitted by the petitioner, and Ext.P2 quotation submitted by the 3rd respondent. That apart, it is stated that, the 3rd respondent has wrongly stated her name in the quotation as 'Rahitha Balu' and further, she did not produce her identity card along with the quotation, which was a mandatory condition stipulated by the 2nd respondent while inviting the tender. Instead of producing her identity card, 3rd respondent produced the identity card of one Balu Mohan, and the same is evident from Ext.P2. Apart from the same, she has attached a recommendation from an influential person along with her quotation, which is against the terms and conditions of the quotation.

(3.) That apart, it is stated that the rates quoted by the petitioner for all food items enlisted in the quotation are lesser than the rates quoted by the 3rd respondent. However, the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 29.12.2016, decided to award the tender to the 3rd respondent, without stating any reason for rejecting the tender submitted by the petitioner. A copy of the said report, selecting the 3rd respondent as the successful bidder, obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act is produced as Ext.P3. That apart, Ext.P4 communication dated 13.02.2017 is issued by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent, asking the 3rd respondent to produce her identity card, since she has produced the identity card of another person along with the quotation. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that the tender submitted by the 3rd respondent was not in accordance with the stipulations contained in the tender documents. Therefore, interference of this Court is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.